Jesse wrote:This is it pretty much exactly. I know I tend to think in extreams, while the truth generally resides in-between, I think being able to prove our understanding of reality is important, and in some ways I feel without evidence my experiences and beliefs are unfounded. Sort of like everything is a fantasy unless I can prove they had some reality behind them, some substance.

You mean you want to prove that you exist?

NAMO AMITABHANAM MO A DI DA PHAT (VIETNAMESE)NAMO AMITUOFO (CHINESE)Linjii―Listen! Those of you who devote yourselves to the Dharma must not be afraid of losing your bodies and your lives―

Jesse wrote:I think it's a natural progression in a way, science has enabled us more control over our lives than ever, so I think it's natural to turn to it's methodology in solving spiritual problems, though it might not be well equipped or capable of answering them.

Crucial point - it is not equipped at all to answer them. To look to science to solve spiritual problems is a missapplication of science.

Not true, but you may be proceeding with your own understanding of what a 'spiritual problem' is, and that could be just about anything. If there is a definable problem, science could certainly aid in a solution to the problem, if not solve it.

The human desire for meaning (which appears to be what this topic is about) has been studied scientifically, for example, and can aid in understanding it.

Consider the prevalence of 'diseases of affluence' in the developed nations. In many societies which have benefitted most directly from advanced technologies and science, there are high rates of suicide, drug dependency, anxiety, depression and mental illness. If there was a correlate between scientific progress and spiritual well-being, you would not expect to see this.

This is nonsensical as stated, or doesn't mean anything.

Now it is true that economic and social progress provide the liberty to pursue spiritual truths - in fact I am a firm believer and advocate of progress for that very reason. But we have to be very clear about what science and technology can and cannot do. And they can't make us better people. That is something we have to do, through self-examination and self-discipline, by compassionate action for others, and so on.

Science can aid in making us better people, or rather, aid in self-examination, discipline, compassion, and so on. It demonstrates an irrational bias to say otherwise, in my opinion. Science may not be adequate to provide essential meaning, but getting essential meaning from religion does not a good person make, unfortunately. History is replete with examples to show the truth of that.

It is Zen Master Dae Kwang Sunim. Previous guiding teacher and abbot of the Kwan Um School of Zen, who resided at providence zen center. He is retired now though. But he still teaches sometimes. The first zen teacher I ever studied with, very cool guy. Always liked him the most, probably because he's an actual monk. I think he lives in California now.

One should not kill any living being, nor cause it to be killed, nor should one incite any other to kill. Do never injure any being, whether strong or weak, in this entire universe!

Jesse wrote: I imagine you can 'take' neither with you once death arrives, so which is really more important?

The little frog in his puddle fills his rucksack with the obtained knowledge to understand all about the ocean and in the ocean he dissolves.

One practice example of the many is ( I already posted but my practice can use a repeating bell , so thank you very much) by Ahjan Chah and Jetsunma Tenzin Palmo: "Simply dwell with 'that which knows' (aware), not with knowed things (grasping). Stop identifying..."

Phil-practice. Both are useful, since we first need to understand what it is all about. Also whether we need a lot of study/phil or a lot of practice depends, it is for each of us a bit different and usually we talk from our standpoint. But to tell an old man of let say 75, to prostrate a 100,000 times, study and recite scripts for 15 years and then go in retreat for 25 years, seems at least a mathematical problem.

Jesse wrote:It's not that I doubt Buddhism in itself, but for example how do we know that emptiness is the ultimate reality? That there is nothing greater? Is it a belief or can we actually prove it? Apparently it can be experienced, but does that mean it's true? That's sort of my line of thinking anyway.

Right. Well, what is emptiness?

It merely means impermanence, essentially, which is only apparently true.

No, emptiness does not mean impermanence although anything that is empty is also impermanent.

Emptiness can be seen in different ways but if you want to say that emptiness is basically X, then that X is dependent arising and in this content emptiness and dependent arising are synonyms.

So Jesse asks: how do we know that emptiness is the ultimate reality? We know it because the Buddha taught it, as did enlightened yogis and we can study it as a truth for ourselves and begin to verify it. But it will take some dedication and effort. One would only put that effort in if one had faith in the Buddhadharma.

Jesse wrote:Lately I've been troubled by the inability of meditation, and spirituality in general to produce any real tangible truth about reality.

Back to the start. This ^^^^ is itself a truth claim, or a claim about reality: it really is impossible to find some absolute grounding in discourse, in philosophical claims. That's an aspect of the truth of emptiness, the emptiness of views.

There's no need to take this jewel back out into the weeds and thickets of views.

Need help getting on retreat? Want to support others in practice? Pay the Dana for Dharma forum a visit...

kirtu wrote:No, emptiness does not mean impermanence although anything that is empty is also impermanent.

Emptiness can be seen in different ways but if you want to say that emptiness is basically X, then that X is dependent arising and in this content emptiness and dependent arising are synonyms.

No, dependent arising can be seen as complementary but not synonymous. It is commonly complemented in this way because some fear emptiness can lead to nihilism. Apparently people who complement emptiness teachings in this way don't know that greed, ignorance, and hate lead negative nihilism and the like.

So Jesse asks: how do we know that emptiness is the ultimate reality?

We don't know. It is only apparently true. But just because things appear to be impermanent doesn't mean that there is not an immortal soul, for instance. It also doesn't mean that there isn't an independent soul.

shel wrote:No, dependent arising can be seen as complementary but not synonymous. It is commonly complemented in this way because some fear emptiness can lead to nihilism. Apparently people who complement emptiness teachings in this way don't know that greed, ignorance, and hate lead negative nihilism and the like.

dharmagoat wrote:Life has as much and as little meaning as we give it.

Kind of obvious, really.

Yes, precisely... and not only life, but everything. Meaning comes and goes, grows and fades, can be given or taken away.It should be obvious now that this which does not come and go, grow or fade, the unconditioned, if free from meaning. Philosophy is looking for the ultimate meaning, where practice aims for release from it.

Mahā-Prajñā-Pāramitā wrote:Śāriputra said to the Buddha, “World-Honored One, prajñā-pāramitā as pronounced by Mañjuśrī is not understandable or knowable to novice Bodhisattvas.”Mañjuśrī said, “Not only novice Bodhisattvas cannot know it, but even riders of the Two Vehicles who have accomplished their undertaking [for Arhatship or Pratyekabuddhahood] cannot understand or know it. No one can know the Dharma expounded in this way. Why not? Because the appearance of bodhi cannot be known through such dharmas as seeing, hearing, capturing, thinking, speaking, or listening. Bodhi is empty and silent in nature and appearance, with no birth, no death, no attaining, no knowing, no shape, and no form.

We don't know. It is only apparently true. But just because things appear to be impermanent doesn't mean that there is not an immortal soul, for instance. It also doesn't mean that there isn't an independent soul.

Emptiness (sunyata) merely describes the true nature of phenomena. Emptiness isn't a pre-existing condition in which "real' things arise. It's not like, first there is all this emptiness, and then things arise in it (although that might describe the universe, but that is not what the term means in Buddhist usage).

There is nothing that suggests the existence of a soul, except as something people conjured up in their imaginations a long time ago, which still persists as a hypothetical concept, no different from a mythological creature.

Buddhism argues that a permanent soul thing is impossible, because if it "exists" in relation to changing conditions, the nature of it's existence is thus also conditional (relative) and not finite (ultimate) in which case there is nothing about it which can be called 'permanent"

and if it does not "exist' in relation to conditions, then it has no existence in the context of anything we can experience. It would be nothing we could ever have any contact with. Thus, any definition of it's "existing' is moot....

Profile Picture: "The Foaming Monk"The Chinese characters are Fo (buddha) and Ming (bright). The image is of a student of Buddhism, who, imagining himself to be a monk, and not understanding the true meaning of the words takes the sound of the words literally. Likewise, People on web forums sometime seem to be foaming at the mouth. Original painting by P.Volker /used by permission.

dharmagoat wrote:Life has as much and as little meaning as we give it.

Agreed

dharmagoat wrote:Kind of obvious, really.

In the context in which the question gained currency (loss of Christian faith) it wouldn't have been at all obvious, but even now, short of becoming fully enlightened, how can we know for sure that life has no predetermined meaning? Can we even give any genuine meaning to life in the light of the dharma teachings, to which the idea of 'meaning' seems irrelevant?

oushi wrote:Meaning comes and goes, grows and fades, can be given or taken away.It should be obvious now that this which does not come and go, grow or fade, the unconditioned, if free from meaning.

If you're talking about the literal meaning of 'meaning', i.e. that "that" that this 'this' refers to , then i see your logic.

oushi wrote:Philosophy is looking for the ultimate meaning, where practice aims for release from it.

Because of its Christian roots, 'Meaning' in the philosophical sense of 'The Meaning of Life' etc. seems to add something heavy to the literal sense. We don't practice in order to live meaningless lives (we have alcohol and video games for that ), but I guess we do practice in order to be released from the illusive 'meaning' samsara suggests to us (i.e. 'I').

oushi wrote:

Mahā-Prajñā-Pāramitā wrote:Śāriputra said to the Buddha, “World-Honored One, prajñā-pāramitā as pronounced by Mañjuśrī is not understandable or knowable to novice Bodhisattvas.”Mañjuśrī said, “Not only novice Bodhisattvas cannot know it, but even riders of the Two Vehicles who have accomplished their undertaking [for Arhatship or Pratyekabuddhahood] cannot understand or know it. No one can know the Dharma expounded in this way. Why not? Because the appearance of bodhi cannot be known through such dharmas as seeing, hearing, capturing, thinking, speaking, or listening. Bodhi is empty and silent in nature and appearance, with no birth, no death, no attaining, no knowing, no shape, and no form.